Amendment Text:
H.Amdt.926 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:Amendment as Offered (02/06/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H502 in the following article from the Congressional Record.

[Pages H490-H503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CIVILIAN PROPERTY REALIGNMENT ACT
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 1734.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 534 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1734.
{time} 1903
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1734) to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating,
selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency of federal buildings
and other civilian real property, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Woodall in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) and the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The purpose of H.R. 1734 is to shrink the Federal real property
footprint and save billions of taxpayer dollars by selling what we
don't need and better utilizing what we keep. In fiscal year 2009
alone, the Federal Government wasted more than $1.7 billion in
operating underused properties. Unfortunately, under existing law,
solving this problem is not easy--the process is too cumbersome and
congested with red tape.
The administration has tried but has realized it cannot achieve major
savings without reform. As a result, H.R. 1734 includes a bipartisan
solution to this problem--establishing a civilian BRAC-like process.
However, unlike BRAC, the purpose of H.R. 1734 is to save money, and
the commission would have to recommend actions that would result in net
savings. The administration believes there are several billion dollars
worth of high-value properties that could be sold quickly, and I agree
with their assessment. Federal real property has been on GAO's high-
risk list for nearly a decade now, and our committee, which oversees
public buildings, has seen the waste firsthand.
The amended bill creates a nine-member commission that would review
Federal properties and recommend specific actions to reduce the Federal
building inventory and, more efficiently, house Federal employees. The
commission could recommend property sales, consolidations,
redevelopments, or other property actions. The bill does not apply to
military bases, national parks and recreation areas, or a variety of
other Federal properties. The administration would have 30 days to
reject the recommendations or forward them to Congress for an up-or-
down vote. If approved, agencies would be required to implement them.
In conclusion, let me say that both Republican and Democrat
administrations have tried to work within the system to get rid of
unneeded Federal property and have failed. Both parties know the
process is broken and have proposed an independent BRAC-like commission
to solve the problem. I believe this bill is a big step in the right
direction, and I thank you for your consideration.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment
Act.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree that we need a system to dispose
of and consolidate excess Federal property. I have worked diligently
with the
[[Page H491]]
chairman for such a bill for most of this year. However, the bill
before us does not reflect the bipartisan compromise I agreed to.
Moreover, I have just learned that the President also opposes the bill,
and apparently, it does not even reflect a compromise among
Republicans.
I opposed this bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and it passed on a party-line vote. The bill before us today
is essentially the same bill that I opposed at the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee markup. Shortly after that markup, the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which I also serve,
approved a bipartisan alternative bill by voice vote, which I supported
because it did not have the issues I have with the bill before us
today.
Why was the Transportation and Infrastructure bill rushed to the
Rules Committee on Friday and quickly brought to the floor today?
Why didn't we take the time to craft a bill that could pass the House
with bipartisan support and that could stand a chance to pass in the
Senate?
{time} 1910
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, why isn't the bipartisan bill that I
agreed to before us on the floor this evening? When I testified before
the Rules Committee on Friday, I indicated that I would support the
bill if the protections in existing law for the environment and the
homeless were included in the bill. These protections are not included
in the bill.
The Rules Committee reported out a bill with no self-executing
amendments. Instead, they made several amendments--including mine--in
order for full consideration. I could have done that all along. There
are no assurances whatsoever that my amendments would be adopted on
this floor. The only way to ensure that my amendments were included in
the bill would have been for the Rules Committee to have adopted a rule
that made my amendments self-executing and, therefore, a part of the
bill before us today.
I will not stand here today to support a bill I've consistently
opposed at Transportation and Infrastructure Committee markups on a
hope and prayer that my amendments would have been adopted on the
floor. I will not offer, as amendments, provisions I had every reason
to expect would have been a part of the bill reported out of the Rules
Committee. To offer my amendments separately is to greatly risk their
defeat while the bill before us, which I oppose, still passes. I will
not be used to give bipartisan cover to this bill or to paper over a
divide among Republicans.
The subcommittee that I serve on had two excellent hearings on the
creation of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. I support the
original bipartisan idea of assembling a Civilian Property Realignment
Commission, but there are several portions of H.R. 1734 before us on
the floor right now that do not reflect a revised bipartisan bill. I
have consistently attempted to make the needed changes to this bill,
and they were unacceptable at the full committee markup and then at
Rules, where my changes were not incorporated into the bill on this
floor today.
As subcommittee ranking member, I was not informed that if I wanted
the changes in the bill, I would have to offer my amendments separately
on the floor. Who would have agreed to that as a bipartisan compromise?
I have been consistent in offering amendments to this bill to
eliminate the waiver of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA,
and the inclusion of a review of excess Federal property for homeless
service providers and other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian
Property Realignment Commission that would have been created by this
bill.
Curiously, the chairman now brings to the floor his own amendment
concerning homeless providers which mirrors the homelessness section of
the amendment assigned to me, but he does not include in his amendment
the NEPA provision section of my amendment to which he and I agreed in
order to reach a compromise.
The bill, as it stands, severely limits the review of Federal
property for a possible transfer to homeless providers and other public
benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. By
bypassing McKinney-Vento in the disposal process, the bill
unnecessarily reduces the pool of Federal properties available for
transfer to homeless service providers. In these difficult times,
extinguishing the right of first refusal for homeless providers would
be a severe blow to a sector that has already had to contend with a
huge downturn in charitable giving during the recent recession. The
experience, moreover, with homeless service providers is that they take
only the smallest properties. And I had already agreed to shorten the
time period for providers to claim properties.
Secondly, the bill, as reported, would waive the application of the
National Environmental Policy Act to some actions of the commission
which I have always strongly opposed. Section 18(b) waives compliance
with NEPA for the actions of the President, the commission, or any
Federal agency when considering any of the commission's
recommendations, except during the process of property disposal and
during the process of relocating functions from a property being
disposed of or realigned to another location.
It is important to carefully conduct the environmental review on any
decision to close, relocate, or reconfigure a Federal facility in time
for the commission to consider the full implications of its actions.
The current language precludes a full review of the actions until after
the decision to sell or dispose of a piece of Federal property has
already been made. This problem could have easily been fixed by
including language that required agencies to submit information about
the environmental conditions of a building and any information that the
agency might have had about the potential impacts to the environment if
a property was disposed of, consolidated, or redeveloped. Therefore, I
must oppose the bill before us, and I urge opposition until a
bipartisan base bill reflecting the issues I have discussed is
presented on the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, just to quickly respond, let me first say
thank you to the ranking member of the subcommittee. We have worked on
this bill for a year. We agreed on language. We accepted the
administration's language and worked with OMB on making sure that this
was a bill that not only passed with bipartisan support but was
something that the Senate would welcome and the President would sign.
So it's been a good year. We've worked very well together, I think, on
the issue up until this point.
And I know that it became somewhat contentious in committee because
we had several different properties listed in the bill to help pay for
and make sure that this was a pay-as-you-go bill. We pulled those out
in an effort to create bipartisanship and to make sure that those
issues that the other side of the aisle wanted addressed were
addressed, but we went a step further.
As the ranking member of the committee asked for several different
amendments, we agreed to those amendments. The environmental issue, we
agreed to her amendment. Even though OMB had suggested that they didn't
want lawsuits to apply, we went ahead and, in a sense of
bipartisanship, wanted to agree to the ranking member's amendment on
this. As well, the homeless, we agreed to a $2 million exemption to
make sure the homeless were well taken care of. That was changed to $3
million. We agreed to that. It was changed to $5 million. We agreed to
that as well, even though I can't imagine the homeless wanting to
utilize a $5 million piece of property--it seems somewhat excessive--
but in a true spirit of bipartisanship, we agreed.
I keep my word. I will continue to support the ranking member's
amendment on the floor today. As well, I have included it in my
amendment. I stand by my word, and I hope others on this floor would do
the same.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the former chairman of the subcommittee.
{time} 1920
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
I do stand here as the former chairman of the Economic Development,
Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee who served
[[Page H492]]
alongside the distinguished delegate from the District of Columbia. For
the years I was chairman, we worked very well together, and so it is a
great disappointment that I come to the floor tonight when we thought
we had an agreement. If fact, we did have an agreement. The chairman of
the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee were willing to
accept the gentlelady's amendment and put it in the bill. But yet here
we are today turning this into a partisan bill, which as I said is very
disappointing. She said she couldn't come to the floor just on hope.
She had more than hope; she had the word of the chairman of the
subcommittee and the word of the chairman of the full committee.
So I am here tonight in strong support of the Civilian Property
Realignment Act. There are immediate savings: a savings up to $1
billion a year this year alone, and $15 billion over the next 10 years.
It reduces the size of government. The commission was tasked with
literally reducing the Federal footprint.
And as we know, we have an example right down on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Old Post Office building is going to be put up for a long-term
lease. We've got some of the premier hotel operators in the world that
want to turn that into a first-rate premier hotel right on Pennsylvania
Avenue. Whether it's the Waldorf Astoria or the Marriott or the Trump
organization, they all want to take that and immediately turn it into a
premier hotel. There will be construction jobs, jobs working in the
hotel for the long term, so it's really unfortunate that this bill is
going to be made partisan this evening.
The bill establishes a real property commission, a nine person
Civilian Property Realignment Commission that will serve to consolidate
the footprint, maximize the utilization rate of Federal buildings and
facilities, reduce the reliance on costly leased space, sell or
redevelop high-value assets that are underutilized--as we talked about,
the old Post Office Building. It reduces the operating and maintenance
costs of Federal civilian real properties through the realignment of
other real properties. It reduces redundancy, overlap, and costs
associated with field offices. It creates incentives for Federal
agencies to achieve greater efficiency in the inventories of real
property the Federal Government has. It facilitates and expedites the
sale or disposal of unneeded civilian properties. And it assists
Federal agencies in achieving the government's sustainability goals by
reducing excess space, inventory, energy consumption, as well as by
leveraging new technologies.
As the former chair of this committee, I held hearings about the
Federal courthouses. We have overbuilt Federal courthouses in many
places in this country for years. For years we've done that. This is
going to take a step in reducing what we've been doing and
consolidating and doing things that are appropriate and proper to save
the taxpayers' money.
It takes the politics out of the process. It provides for expedited
review and up-or-down consideration of the commission's
recommendations, just like the BRAC process.
Congress would have the opportunity to disapprove of the committee's
recommendations en bloc only, not in piecemeal, which is ensuring that
politics will be removed from this process.
It provides for a one-time appropriation of $82 million to fully
offset from the GSA's building and acquisition amount, after which
proceeds from the sale will be used to repay the Treasury.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DENHAM. I yield the gentleman another 1 minute.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
It deals exclusively with public properties--military installations,
properties deemed essential for reasons of national security, and
national parks are not subject to this jurisdiction.
Again, I come to the floor tonight with deep disappointment in the
ranking member, who for so many years has worked in a bipartisan way on
this subcommittee. Text was available since December, so it's no
surprise. The subcommittee chairman and full committee chairman agreed
to accept her amendment in its entirety, and most importantly, and
something that's lacking in Washington today and lacking in Congress,
is people not keeping their word, and the chairman of the subcommittee
is keeping his word, which is extremely important in this whole
process.
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1734, the Civilian
Property Realignment Act.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I hope the gentleman is not implying that I do not keep my word, and
let me be clear what my word was. I gave my word that I would support a
bipartisan bill, not that I would support the opportunity to offer
amendments on the floor.
The gentleman knows quite well that the NEPA amendment is an
amendment that his side generally does not support. Let me be plain.
They generally don't support NEPA. The reason that the gentleman was
willing to somehow come forward with what would appears to be a
redundant amendment on homelessness--since mine already had
homelessness in it--is because he wanted to separate himself from the
NEPA amendment, and he knows full well that I would never support his
bill without the NEPA provisions that I have spent months--months--
changing.
This is a tragic collapse of what had been a bipartisan process until
we went to the Rules Committee, when somebody made it clear, when
somebody made it clear--and I don't know who it was--that this bill
could be brought forward, the very bill I voted against, leaving it to
this Member to take her chances that the other side of the aisle would
support an amendment of the kind they have resolutely refused to
support on the floor but that she believed that because a compromise
had been worked out with the chairman, they might on this occasion
support. I keep my word as well.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker,
and I rise in opposition to H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property
Realignment Act.
Although I support the efforts to improve the process used to dispose
of Federal property, I believe in its current form this legislation
inappropriately limits the access that service providers for the
homeless have traditionally had to surplus Federal property.
Current law requires that all Federal surplus properties be
considered for use by entities that provide assistance for the
homeless. This legislation would create a BRAC-like commission to
dispose of unused Federal property, and would require a majority vote
of this commission before any specific property could be considered for
homeless assistance.
This provision is misguided and should have been eliminated before
this legislation reached the floor. I submitted to the Rules Committee
a commonsense amendment that would have fixed this problem. My
amendment would have ensured that section 501 of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, which provides for the discounted conveyance
of surplus Federal property to homeless assistance providers, would
continue to apply to all properties approved for disposal by the
commission established by H.R. 1734.
Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order. There is no
evidence that the current process for reviewing properties for use by
homeless assistance providers has slowed property disposals. Indeed,
more than 14,000 properties have completed Title V reviews and remain
on the government's books awaiting disposal.
According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, the number
of homeless children in America increased by more than 448,000 from
2007 to 2010 due to the financial crisis. Approximately 1.6 million
children--1 in 45 children--were homeless in 2010, a 38 percent
increase over the level of child homelessness in 2007.
With access to surplus Federal properties, homeless assistance
providers can provide housing, support services, and employment
assistance to help the homeless get back on their feet. We should not
make careless alterations to the McKinney-Vento program.
I understand the gentlelady from the District of Columbia plans to
offer an amendment that would require the Secretary of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development to apply
[[Page H493]]
section 501 of McKinney-Vento to the extent practicable. If she does, I
would support that.
This is a step in the right direction, and I commend her efforts. But
there should be no limitations on the size and value of the properties
that should be subject to review for potential use by homeless
assistance groups. For that reason, I cannot support this legislation
so long as it contains provisions that would be harmful to the homeless
and would reduce resources available to homeless assistance providers.
I urge Members to oppose H.R. 1734.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate one more time, I support
the gentlelady's amendment. I look forward to voting on it as long as
she brings it up. We support the homeless in this bill. We agreed to it
in Rules. We still support it today, and there will definitely be
sufficient votes on this side of the aisle if she decides to bring it
up. And you know what? If it doesn't pass, then vote against the bill.
But if you believe in the homeless issue, then put your amendment up
and let's have the votes on it.
{time} 1930
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), also a former subcommittee chairman.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. It was a privilege for 2 years to be the ranking
member of this subcommittee, and I will tell you that this subcommittee
has never been a partisan subcommittee, and I commend Chairman Denham
for keeping that tradition of focusing on the issues and working with
both sides of the aisle to try to get good products without getting
into this partisan melee. So I commend the chairman for continuing in
that tradition. He's done so in a marvelous way.
And here's another example: he sat down with the ranking member, and
they worked out all these issues. The chairman actually went to the
Rules Committee, testified in the Rules Committee in favor of making
these amendments, the ranking member's amendments, so that they would
be in order. Lo and behold, the Rules Committee did what both of them,
in a bipartisan way, asked for. They allowed for those amendments to be
in order.
Now, I have the highest admiration and respect for the ranking
member. I have worked very closely with her, but I'm a little bit,
frankly, intrigued. So the ranking member now says, well, if her
amendments that the chairman asked to be made in order, the amendments
that he supported, that he continues to support, that he says that he
supported, that he supported in the Rules Committee, she says if those
amendments don't pass, well, then she would vote against the bill, so
therefore she's not going to bring up the amendments. Excuse me?
What usually happens is, heck, you bring up amendments even if the
ranking member or the chairman doesn't agree with you. But if you have
the agreement of the chairman of the committee, he's here again stating
it, who's worked with you the entire process, the chairman of the
committee helped you get those amendments made in order in the Rules
Committee, they come to the floor made in order, here they are ready to
discuss, and then you say, no, now I'm not going to put up the
amendments because if they don't pass, now I'll vote against the bill.
I agree with the chairman. Put the amendments up. If the amendments
don't pass, even with the support of the chairman and the ranking
member, then there's good reason for the ranking member to vote against
it. But to withdraw an amendment when you have everybody's support,
when you are pretty much guaranteed----
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DENHAM. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You're pretty much guaranteed as much as you are in
this process that they're going to pass because you have the ranking
member of one party and the chairman who has worked with the ranking
member, they both agree, they're noncontroversial, they're ready to go,
and, all of a sudden, the ranking member pulls them back and says, for
some reason, I'm going to pull them back if they don't pass, I'm going
to vote against the bill, well, bring them up. If they don't pass, vote
against the bill. But we won't know in the democratic process if an
amendment is going to pass even if the chairman and the ranking member
agree with it until you bring it up.
So I would respectfully suggest that the ranking member, whom I
admire, just bring up the amendments. The chairman has supported them
in the Rules Committee, and he's supporting them now. Bring them up.
Let's hopefully work on getting the votes because he is working with
you to try to get the votes. If they don't pass, vote against it. But
the chances are they're going to pass. Let's let the democratic process
go forward.
And, again, I commend the chairman for keeping up the tradition of
not bogging down in partisan politics. Mr. Chairman, you are to be
commended for that. Thank you, sir.
Ms. NORTON. I will take such time as I may require.
I wish that the chairman--he and I have had a very cordial and an
amicable relationship. I only wish that he could guarantee that my
amendments would, in fact, pass. I'm afraid that, watching his caucus
in operation for a full year when they could not even agree whether or
not the United States Government should go into default, I can't blame
him for not being able to guarantee they will pass. But let me say why
taking my chances that they would pass, even given his good faith
hoping they would pass, is not enough.
If he, in fact, wanted to make sure that the amendment passed, then
he, of course, would be on the amendment. Instead, he does something
curious indeed. He looks at my amendment, dissects it, takes the part
of the amendment that he regards as less controversial--and on his side
of the aisle--both parts will be controversial, but the least
controversial part--and he says, I take this part, it's exactly like
the homeless part of the so-called Norton amendment, but the other part
that I testified to in Rules Committee he is not identified with that
amendment on this floor.
Now, I ask Members, what would you think if the chairman had gone
with you to Rules saying he supported the amendment, and then when we
got to the floor was willing to stand up--sorry--went to the trouble of
pulling out one section of my amendment only to claim as his own? Why
wouldn't he simply embrace my amendment?
Worse, why wouldn't he have made sure that this was a bipartisan bill
so that I would not be put in this position? And this is important to
understand. If I bring up my amendment separately and it goes down,
what will be before the House is essentially the bill I voted against
in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Do I look like a
fool?
I voted against the bill that is on the floor today. In all good
faith, the chairman cannot guarantee that the full bill with the
changes that he and I agreed to will be the bill that, in fact, emerges
here this evening. In fact, let me be even more blunt. What is more
likely to emerge here this evening is the original bill that I, in
fact, opposed on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The
only way to make sure that my major objection, which was to NEPA, is
included in the bill would have been for this bill to come forward with
what I agreed to in the bill already. For me to have to come to the
floor to beg that a part of this bill which was central to my agreement
to support it now get a vote, especially from a side of this Chamber
which has consistently voted against sections like the section that is
at issue here, is to defy--is not to understand how to put together a
compromise.
If you have a compromise and you come to the floor, you don't take
out part of what the compromise was about, leaving the other part so
that she can fend herself on the floor knowing full well that the
chances of getting that part of the amendment passed are, based on past
experience, are not very great.
So the reason I oppose it is because I believe that perhaps, and I
don't know if other amendments on the Democratic side would be accepted
or not, but I believe that as it now stands, the bill will look
essentially like the bill that I spent all year opposing because my
major reasons for opposing it have not been incorporated in the bill
that will be the final bill voted on. And if I
[[Page H494]]
were to depend only on an amendment on this floor to get this
provision, which has always been controversial on their side in the
bill, then I don't think there's anybody on that side would guarantee
that on their side my amendment with the NEPA provision would, in fact,
pass.
In that event, what I would be left with is the very bill that I have
voted against for an entire year, and that is why I object to the way
in which this bill has been handled.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, we're talking a lot around this issue. The
gentlelady wants a guarantee. Let me give her a guarantee. She can
bring her amendment up right now; we'll do it on a voice vote. It will
be in the text of the bill within 30 minutes, and that is exactly what
we will be voting on tomorrow.
It's very simple. We have the votes. We want the amendment. We want
the Democrat support and want this to be a bipartisan bill. So all she
has to do is bring up the amendment right now, we'll voice vote it, and
it will be part of the bill. So now really the question is, do you or
don't you want the bill?
Ms. NORTON. I want the bill you and I agreed upon, Mr. Chairman, and
that was the bill that had NEPA in it and that had homeless in it.
And let me ask you, why did you come forward with an amendment that
only has the homeless in it, that is the exact mirror image of the
homeless section of my bill, but you did not include the NEPA section?
{time} 1940
Mr. DENHAM. Reclaiming my time, I have a second amendment just in
case, unfortunately, trust leaves this room. In the unfortunate case
that somebody does not offer their amendment, I've got my own. But I am
happy to withdraw my amendment and voice vote her amendment right here
so it's in the bill and we have a bipartisan agreement.
I'm not sure what the concern is. You want a guarantee? Here is a
guarantee, let's do it, bipartisan. Let's get unanimous support out of
this House and show the American people we can agree on cutting waste,
we can agree on creating jobs, we can agree on selling some of the
things we just don't need.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, if I may.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida will state his inquiry.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that if this language
would have been in the bill, that there's no guarantee that somebody
would have not done an amendment in the Rules Committee to take it out,
so that there is no more different guarantee if it was in than if it
was out? Is that not true?
The CHAIR. The gentleman has not stated a proper parliamentary
inquiry. That is a matter for debate.
Mr. DENHAM. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY. I thank the gentleman from California.
I do stand in strong support of the Civilian Property Realignment
Act, and I'll tell you why. I come from the private sector where
sometimes assets become liabilities. An asset becomes a liability when
it costs you so much to insure it, secure it, and maintain it that it
no longer serves the purpose it was originally designed for.
When you look at this, I look at this as almost--there's a TV show. I
haven't seen it, but they tell me it's called ``Hoarders.'' This is
where people hoard things that they have no use for, but it takes up
all space in their house and it takes up their personal wealth.
We are looking at a situation right now in this country where we have
to reduce the size of government and reduce the cost. Why? Because it's
the hardworking American taxpayer that foots the bill for all these
properties that are being unused or underused. Wouldn't it just make
sense to take them from the liability side and put it on the asset
side? It no longer will cost the American taxpayers money to secure,
insure, and maintain. It would go into the private sector. It would
create jobs. These people would convert these into a use that makes
more sense for today, and they would start paying taxes on it. This is
a win-win situation for the American taxpayer.
I would submit to you, if this were not a reelection year, we would
not be going through gymnastics in this House of things that make
absolutely no sense to the people who pay for them; that's the American
taxpayer.
After sitting here for 1 year and watching this ridiculous tennis
match and trying to figure out if we really came to reduce the size of
government, if we really came to reduce the debt that we have, if we
really came to create jobs, if we really came for something that makes
sense for America, why are we wasting America's time by debating issues
that don't make sense for the people that pick up the tab, and that's
the American taxpayer? It is not this House that pays for it. It is
those homes around our district and in this country.
I have gotten to the point where I cannot stand listening to this
garbage that comes out of here. It does nothing but create animosity.
It does nothing to fix the situation. We have absolutely reached way
past the midnight hour.
So I strongly support the gentleman's bill, the Civilian Property
Realignment Act. Let's change these things from being liabilities into
assets. Let's take the government's foot off the throat of the American
taxpayers. Let's turn this country around and make it a useful
situation.
I thank the gentleman. Please stand strong. We need to get these
issues done.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. The Chair would remind all Members to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Well, I don't agree that we're past the midnight hour,
but I agree that we're past the point of no return.
The gentleman wanted to talk about cost. This bill costs $68 million,
a great deal more than another bill that I do support, the Oversight
and Government Reform bill. I serve on that committee as well. I was
willing, since this bill was coming to the floor first and since I had
worked with the gentleman on this bill all along, to support this bill,
but I don't think you can make the case that this bill is less costly
than the Oversight and Government Reform bill. I would have thought
that my colleagues on the other side would have gotten together to work
that problem of two different bills out for themselves.
My chief regret is to have spent a lot of time and effort and
conversation that I believed was getting somewhere. Perhaps it was all
a big misunderstanding. But if it were, if that's what it was, we
certainly informed the other side about my concern before we came. That
concern remains.
I don't have any further speakers. I regretfully cannot support the
bill before us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, once again, this is the amazing thing about
politics. You can have an agreement and support completely the other
side's opinion and still have a disagreement only in this House.
I support getting this country back in line with our fiscal
responsibility. We have a $15 trillion debt, and we've got to do
something about it. We have an opportunity to have a bipartisan
agreement, one that the President is asking for, one he included in his
State of the Union as something to get done. If he cannot get his own
party, if he cannot get the Senate to come along with his ideas, how
are we the obstructionists?
We want to sell properties. We want to sell the noncontroversial
properties. Fourteen thousand properties have been identified as
excess, underutilized properties that we could be moving immediately.
We could be creating billions of dollars to pay down our debt. We could
be redeveloping so many of these historic buildings that are sitting
empty, creating jobs, getting these properties back on the tax rolls.
This is a bipartisan solution that I'm amazed at some of the rhetoric
tonight.
Again, if the ranking member wants a guarantee, we'll give her a
guarantee tonight. Bring up the amendment. We will voice vote it right
now and she will have a guarantee it's in the bill. But yet she doesn't
want to do it. So I have a separate amendment. If we cannot get the
other side of the aisle to present theirs, we will present ours.
[[Page H495]]
Again, we've got to get rid of some of this waste, this additional
expense--$1.9 billion we pay just in operating costs of these
properties we don't use today, properties that are sitting vacant. If
Republicans and Democrats can't agree that an empty building that's not
being used, that has no reason to be used in the future, cannot be
eliminated to reduce our debt, the real question is: What can we agree
on? This is the most simple of deficit reduction plans. This is one the
President has asked for multiple times.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, printed in the
bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
of Rules Committee Print 112-11 is adopted. The bill, as amended, shall
be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1734
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Civilian Property
Realignment Act'' or ``CITA''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to consolidate the footprint of Federal buildings and
facilities;
(2) to maximize the utilization rate of Federal buildings
and facilities;
(3) to reduce the reliance on leased space;
(4) to sell or redevelop high value assets that are
underutilized to obtain the highest and best value for the
taxpayer and maximize the return to the taxpayer;
(5) to reduce the operating and maintenance costs of
Federal civilian real properties through the realignment of
real properties by consolidating, colocating, and
reconfiguring space, and other operational efficiencies;
(6) to reduce redundancy, overlap, and costs associated
with field offices;
(7) to create incentives for Federal agencies to achieve
greater efficiency in their inventories of civilian real
property;
(8) to facilitate and expedite the sale or disposal of
unneeded civilian properties; and
(9) to assist Federal agencies in achieving the
Government's sustainability goals by reducing excess space,
inventory, and energy consumption, as well as by leveraging
new technologies.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, unless otherwise expressly stated, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Federal civilian real property and civilian real
property.--
(A) Property.--The terms ``Federal civilian real property''
and ``civilian real property'' refer to Federal real property
assets, including public buildings as defined in section 3301
of title 40, United States Code, occupied and improved
grounds, leased space, or other physical structures under the
custody and control of Federal agency.
(B) Further exclusions.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed as including any of the following types of
property:
(i) A base, camp, post station, yard, center, homeport
facility for any ship, or any activity under the jurisdiction
of the Department of Defense or Coast Guard.
(ii) Properties that are excluded for reasons of national
security by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget.
(iii) Properties that are excepted from the definition of
``property'' under section 102(9) of title 40, United States
Code.
(iv) Indian and Native Alaskan properties including--
(I) any property within the limits of any Indian
reservation to which the United States owns title for the
benefit of an Indian tribe; and
(II) any property title which is held in trust by the
United States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or
individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual subject
to restriction by the United States against alienation.
(v) Properties operated and maintained by the Tennessee
Valley Authority pursuant to the Tennessee Valley Authority
Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831, et seq.
(vi) Postal properties owned by the United States Postal
Service.
(vii) Properties used in connection with Federal programs
for agricultural, recreational, and conservation purposes,
including research in connection with the programs.
(viii) Properties used in connection with river, harbor,
flood control, reclamation, or power projects.
(ix) Properties located outside the United States operated
or maintained by the Department of State or the United States
Agency for International Development.
(2) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an
executive department or independent establishment in the
executive branch of the Government, and a wholly owned
Government corporation.
(3) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of General Services.
(4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Civilian
Property Realignment Commission.
(5) OMB.--The term ``OMB'' means the Office of Management
and Budget.
(6) Field office.--The term ``field office'' means any
Federal office that is not the Headquarters office location
for the Federal agency.
SEC. 4. COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an independent
commission to be known as the Civilian Property Realignment
Commission, referred to in this Act as the ``Commission''.
(b) Duties.--The Commission shall carry out the duties as
specified in this Act.
(c) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of a
Chairperson appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and 8 members appointed by
the President.
(2) Appointments.--In selecting individuals for
appointments to the Commission, the President shall consult
with--
(A) the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning
the appointment of 2 members;
(B) the majority leader of the Senate concerning the
appointment of 2 members;
(C) the minority leader of the House of Representatives
concerning the appointment of 1 member; and
(D) the minority leader of the Senate concerning the
appointment of 1 member.
(3) Terms.--The term for each member of the Commission
shall be 6 years.
(4) Vacancies.--Vacancies shall be filled in the same
manner as the original appointment.
(5) Qualifications--In selecting. individuals for
appointment to the Commission, the President shall ensure the
Commission contains individuals with expertise representative
of the following:
(A) Commercial real estate and redevelopment.
(B) Government management or operations.
(C) Community development, including transportation and
planning.
(D) Historic preservation.
SEC. 5. COMMISSION MEETINGS.
(a) Open Meetings.--Each meeting of the Commission, other
than meetings in which classified information is to be
discussed, shall be open to the public. Any open meeting
shall be announced in the Federal Register and the Federal
website established by the Commission at least 14 calendar
days in advance of a meeting. For all public meetings, the
Commission shall release an agenda and a listing of materials
relevant to the topics to be discussed.
(b) Quorum and Meetings.--Seven Commission members shall
constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business
and 3 or more Commission members shall constitute a meeting
of the Commission.
(c) Transparency of Information.--All the proceedings,
information, and deliberations of the Commission shall be
open, upon request, to the Chairperson and the ranking
minority party member, and their respective subcommittee
Chairperson and ranking minority party member, of--
(1) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives;
(2) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives;
(3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(4) the Committee on Environmental and Public Works of the
Senate; and
(5) the committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
(d) Government Accountability Office.--All proceedings,
information, and deliberations of the Commission shall be
open, upon request, to the Comptroller General of the United
States.
SEC. 6. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.
(a) Compensation.--
(1) Rate of pay for members.--Each member, other than the
Chairperson, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay payable
for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel
time) during which the member is engaged in the actual
performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(2) Rate of pay for chairperson.--Chairperson shall be paid
for each day referred to in paragraph (1) at a rate equal to
the daily equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic
pay payable for level III of the Executive Schedule under
section 5314, of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Travel.--Members shall receive travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
(a) Appointment.--The Commission shall appoint an Executive
Director and may disregard the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service.
(b) Rate of Pay for Director.--The Executive Director shall
be paid at the rate of basic pay payable or level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code.
SEC. 8. STAFF.
(a) Additional Personnel.--Subject to subsection (b), the
Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, may
appoint and fix the pay of additional personnel.
(b) Detail Employees From Other Agencies.--Upon request of
the Executive Director, the head of any Federal agency may
detail any of the personnel of that agency to the Commission
to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under
this Act.
(c) Qualifications.--Appointments shall be made with
consideration of a balance of expertise consistent with the
qualifications of representatives described in section
4(c)(5).
[[Page H496]]
SEC. 9. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY.
(a) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission, to the extent
practicable and subject to appropriations made by law, shall
use existing contracts entered into by the Administrator for
services necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission.
(b) Space.--The Administrator, in consultation with the
Commission, shall identify suitable excess space within the
Federal space inventory to house the operations of the
Commission.
(c) Personal Property.--The Commission shall use personal
property already in the custody and control of the
Administrator.
(d) Use of Small Businesses.--In exercising its authorities
under this section and section 12, the Commission shall use,
to the greatest extent practicable, small businesses as
defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
632).
SEC. 10. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall cease operations and terminate 6 years
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 11. DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION.
(a) Submissions of Agency Information and
Recommendations.--Not, later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act and 120 days after the beginning of
each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each Federal agency
shall submit to the Administrator and the Director of OMB the
following:
(1) Current data.--Current, data of all Federal civilian
real properties owned, leased, or controlled by the
respective agency, including all relevant information
prescribed by the Administrator and the Director of OMB,
including data related to the age and condition of the
property, operating costs, history of capital expenditures,
sustainability metrics, number of Federal employees and
functions housed in the respective property, and square
footage (including gross, rentable, and usable).
(2) Agency recommendations.--Recommendations which shall
include the following:
(A) Federal civilian properties that can be sold for
proceeds and otherwise disposed of, reported as excess,
declared surplus, or otherwise no longer meeting the needs of
the agency, excluding leasebacks or other such exchange
agreements where the property continues to be used by the
agency.
(B) Federal civilian properties that can he transferred,
exchanged, consolidated, co-located, reconfigured, or
redeveloped, so as to reduce the civilian real property
inventory, reduce the operating costs of the Government, and
create the highest value and return for the taxpayer.
(C) Operational efficiencies that the Government can
realize in its operation and maintenance of Federal civilian
real properties.
(b) Standards and Criteria.--Not later than 60 days after
the date specified in subsection (a), the Director of OMB, in
consultation with the Administrator, shall review agency
recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a), and
develop consistent standards and criteria. against which
agency recommendations will be reviewed. The Director of OMB
and the Administrator shall develop recommendations to time
Commission based on those standards and criteria. In
developing the standards and criteria, the Director of OMB,
in consultation with the Administrator, shall incorporate the
following:
(1) The extent to which the Federal building or facility
could be sold (including property that is no longer meeting
the needs of the Federal Government), redeveloped, or
otherwise used to produce the highest and best value and
return for the taxpayer.
(2) The extent to which the operating and maintenance costs
are reduced through consolidating, co-locating, and
reconfiguring space, and through realizing other operational
efficiencies.
(3) The extent to which the utilization rate is being
maximized and is consistent with non-governmental industry
standards for the given function or operation.
(4) The extent and timing of potential costs and savings,
including the number of years, beginning with the date of
completion of the proposed recommendation.
(5) The extent to which reliance on leasing for long-term
space needs is reduced.
(6) The extent to which a Federal building or facility
aligns with the current mission of the Federal agency.
(7) The extent to which there are opportunities to
consolidate similar operations across multiple agencies or
within agencies.
(8) The economic impact on existing communities in the
vicinity of the Federal building or facility.
(9) The extent to which energy consumption is reduced.
(c) Special Rule for Utilization Rates.--Standards
developed by the Director of OMB must incorporate and apply
clear standard utilization rates consistent throughout each
category of space and with non-government space utilization
rates. To the extent the space utilization rates of a given
agency fall below the utilization rates to be applied under
this subsection, the Director may recommend realignment, co-
location, consolidation, or other type of action to improve
space utilization.
(d) Submission to the Commission.--
(1) In general.--The standards, criteria, and
recommendations developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be
submitted to the Commission with all supporting information,
data, analyses, and documentation.
(2) Publication.--The standards, criteria, and
recommendations shall be published in the Federal Register
and transmitted to the committees designated in section 5(c)
and to the Comptroller General of the United States.
(3) Access to information.--The Commission shall also have
access to all information pertaining to the recommendations,
including supporting information, data, analyses, and
documentation submitted pursuant to subsection (a). Upon
request, Federal agencies shall provide, the Commission any
additional information pertaining to its properties.
SEC. 12. COMMISSION DUTIES.
(a) Identification of Property Reduction Opportunities.--
The Commission shall identify opportunities for the
Government to reduce significantly its inventory of civilian
real property and reduce costs to the Government.
(b) Identification of High Value Assets.--
(1) Identification of certain properties.--Not later than
180 days after Commission members are appointed pursuant to
section 4, the Commission shall identify not less than 5
Federal properties that are not on the list of surplus or
excess as of such date with a total fair market value of not
less than $500,000,000 and transmit the list to the President
and Congress as Commission recommendations and subject to the
approval process described in sections 13 and 14.
(2) Information and data.--In order to meet the goal
established under paragraph (1), Federal agencies shall
provide, upon receipt, any and all information and data
regarding its properties to the Commission. The Commission
shall notify the committees listed under section 5(c) of any
failure by any agency to comply with a request of the
Commission.
(c) Analysis of Inventory.--The Commission shall perform an
independent analysis of the inventory of Federal civilian
real property and the recommendations submitted pursuant to
section 11. The Commission shall not be bound or limited by
the recommendations submitted pursuant to section 11. If, in
the opinion of the Commission, an agency fails to provide
needed information, data, or adequate recommendations that
meet the standards and criteria, the Commission shall develop
such recommendations as it considers appropriate based on
existing data contained in the Federal Real Property Profile
or other relevant information.
(d) Receipt of Information and Proposals.--Notwithstanding
any other provision or law, the Commission may receive and
consider proposals, information, and other data submitted by
State and local officials and the private sector. Such
information shall be made publicly available.
(e) Accounting System.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall identify
or develop and implement a system of accounting to be used to
independently evaluate the costs of and returns on the
recommendations. Such accounting system shall be applied in
developing the Commission's recommendations and determining
the highest return to the taxpayer. In applying the
accounting system, the Commission shall set a standard
performance period.
(f) Public Hearing.--The Commission shall conduct public
hearings. All testimony before the Commission at a public
hearing under this paragraph shall be presented under oath.
(g) Reporting of Information and Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the receipt
of recommendations pursuant to section 11, and annually
thereafter, the Commission shall transmit to the President,
and publicly post on a Federal website maintained by the
Commission a report containing the Commission's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations for the consolidation,
exchange, co-location, reconfiguration, lease reductions,
sale, and redevelopment of Federal civilian real properties
and for other operational efficiencies that can be realized
in the Government's operation and maintenance or such
properties.
(2) Recommendations for sale or disposal of property.--To
the extent the Commission recommendations include the sale or
disposal of real property, these properties may be reported
as excess, declared surplus, or determined as no longer
meeting the needs of the Federal Government, excluding
leasebacks or other such exchange agreements where the
property continues to be used by the Federal Government.
(3) Consensus in majority.--The Commission shall seek to
develop consensus recommendations, but if a consensus cannot
be obtained, the Commission may include in its report
recommendations that are supported by a majority of the
Commission.
(h) Federal Website.--The Commission shall establish and
maintain a Federal website for the purposes of making
relevant information publicly available.
(i) Review by GAO.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall transmit to the Congress and to the Commission a
report containing a detailed analysis of the recommendations
and selection process.
SEC. 13. REVIEW BY THE PRESIDENT.
(a) Review of Recommendations.--Upon receipt of the
Commission's recommendations, the President shall conduct a
review of such recommendations.
(b) Report to Commission and Congress.--Not later than 30
days after receipt of the Commission's recommendations, the
President shall transmit to the Commission and Congress a
report that sets forth the President's approval or
disapproval of the Commission's recommendations.
(c) Approval or Disapproval.--If the President--
(1) approves of the Commission's recommendations, the
President shall transmit a copy of the recommendations to
Congress, together with a certification of such approval;
(2) disapproves of the Commission's recommendations, in
whole or in part, the President shall also transmit to the
Commission and Congress the reasons for such disapproval. The
Commission shall then transmit to the President,
[[Page H497]]
not later than 30 days following the disapproval, a revised
list of recommendations;
(3) approves all of the revised recommendations of the
Commission, the President shall transmit a copy or such
revised recommendations to Congress, together with a
certification of such approval; or
(4) does not transmit to the Congress an approval and
certification described in paragraphs (1)or (3) within 30
days of receipt of the Commission's recommendations or
revised recommendations, as the case may be, the process
shall terminate until the following year.
SEC. 14. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) Joint Resolution of Approval.--If a House of Congress
has not taken a vote on final passage of a joint resolution
as described in subsection (c) within 45days after the
President's transmission to that House of the approved
recommendations pursuant to section 13, then such vote shall
be taken on the next day of session following the expiration
of the 45-day period.
(b) Computation of Time Period.--For the purposes of this
section, the days on which either House of Congress is not in
session because of adjournment of more than three days shall
be excluded in the computation of the period of time.
(c) Terms of the Resolution.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution--
(1 ) which does not have a preamble;
(2) the matter after the resolving clause of which is as
follows: ``That Congress approves the recommendations of the
Civilian Property Realignment Commission as submitted by the
President on ___ and notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Federal agencies shall implement and carry out all
of the Commission's recommendations pursuant to section 15 of
the Civilian Property Realignment Act'', the blank space
being filled in with the appropriate date;
(3) the title of which is as follows: ``Joint resolution
approving the recommendations of the Civilian Property
Realignment Commission''; and
(4) which is introduced pursuant to subsection (d).
(d) Introduction.--After a House of Congress receives the
President's transmission of approved recommendations pursuant
to section 13, the majority leader of that House (or a
(designee) shall introduce (by request, if appropriate) a,
joint resolution described in subsection (c)--
(1) in the case of the House of Representatives, within
three legislative days; and
(2) in the case of the Senate, within three session days.
(e) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
(1) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House of
Representatives to which a joint resolution is referred shall
report it to the House without amendment not later than the
tenth legislative day after the date of its introduction. If
a committee fails to report the joint resolution within that
period, it shall be in order to move that the House discharge
the committee from further consideration of the joint
resolution. Such a motion shall be in order only at a time
designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule within
three legislative days after the day on which the proponent,
announces his intention to offer the motion. Notice may not
he given on an anticipatory basis. Such a motion shall not be
in order after the House has disposed of a motion to
discharge a joint resolution. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion except twenty minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. If
such a motion is adopted, the House shall proceed immediately
to consider the joint resolution in accordance with paragraph
(3). A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is
disposed of shall not be in order.
(2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the last committee
authorized to consider a ,joint resolution reports it to the
House or has been discharged (other than by motion) from its
consideration, it shall be in order to move to proceed to
consider the joint resolution in the House. Such a motion
shall be in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in
the legislative schedule within three legislative days after
the day on which the proponent announces his intention to
otter the motion. Notice may not be given on an anticipatory
basis. Such a motion shall not be in order after the House
has disposed of a motion to proceed with respect to that
transmittal of recommendations. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption
without intervening motion. A motion to reconsider the vote
by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.
(3) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against a joint
resolution and against its consideration are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on a joint
resolution to its passage without intervening motion except
five hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate on
the joint resolution. A motion to reconsider the vote on
passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
(4) Post sine die.--If the House has adopted a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment sine die at the end of a
Congress, a motion to discharge under paragraph (1) or a
motion to proceed under subparagraph (2) shall be in order as
applicable.
(f) Consideration in the Senate.--
(g) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to, or motion to
strike a provision from, a joint resolution considered under
this section shall be in order in either the Senate or the
House of Representatives.
(h) Consideration by Other House.--
(1) In general.--If, before the passage by one House of a
joint resolution of that House described in subsection (c),
that House received from the other House a, joint resolution
described in subsection (e), then the following procedures
shall apply:
(A) No Committee referral.--The joint resolution or the
other House shall not be referred to a committee and may not
be considered in the House receiving it except in the case of
final passage as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) Joint resolution procedure.--With respect to a joint
resolution described in subsection (c) of the House receiving
the joint resolution the procedure in that House shall be the
same as if no joint resolution had been received from the
other House, but the vote on final passage shall be on the
joint resolution of the other House.
(2) No Consideration.--Upon disposition of the joint
resolution received from the other House, it shall no longer
be in order to consider the joint resolution that originated
in the receiving House.
(3) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply to the
House of Representatives if the joint resolution received
from the Senate is a revenue measure.
(i) Rules of the Senate and House--This section is enacted
by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is
deemed a part or the rules of each House, respectively, but
applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed
in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in
this section, and it supersedes other rules only to the
extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other ride of that
House.
SEC. 15. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) Carrying Out Recommendations.--Upon the enactment of a
joint resolution described in section 14(c), Federal agencies
shall immediately begin preparation to carry out the
Commission's recommendations and shall initiate all
activities no later than 2 years after the date on which the
President transmits the recommendations to Congress. Federal
agencies shall complete all recommended actions no later than
the end of the 6-year period beginning on the date on which
the President transmits the Commission's recommendations to
Congress. All actions shall be economically beneficial and be
cost neutral or otherwise favorable to the Government. For
actions that will take longer than the 6-year period due to
extenuating circumstances, each Federal agency shall notify
the President and Congress as soon as the extenuating
circumstance presents itself with an estimated time to
complete the relevant action.
(b) Actions of Federal Agencies.--In taking actions related
to any Federal building or facility under this Act, Federal
agencies may, pursuant to subsection (c), take all such
necessary and proper actions, including--
(1) acquiring land, constructing replacement facilities,
performing such other activities, and conducting advance
planning and design as may be required to transfer functions
from a Federal asset or property to another Federal civilian
property; and
(2) reimbursing other Federal agencies for actions
performed at the request of the Commission.
(c) Necessary and Proper Actions.--When acting on a
recommendation of the Commission, a Federal agency shall
continue to act within their existing legal authorities,
whether such authority has been delegated by the
Administrator, or must work in partnership with the
Administrator to carry out such actions. The Administrator
may take such necessary and proper actions, including the
sale, conveyance, or exchange or civilian real property, as
required to implement the Commission recommendations in the
time period required under subsection (a).
(d) Discretion of Administrator Regarding Transactions.--
For any transaction identified, recommended, or commenced as
a result of this Act, any otherwise required legal priority
given to, or requirement to enter into, a transaction to
convey a Federal civilian real property for less than fair
market value, for no consideration at all, or in a
transaction that mandates the exclusion of other market
participants, shall be at the discretion of the
Administrator.
SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized a one-time
appropriation to carry out this Act in the following amounts:
(1) $20,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the
Commission.
(2) $62,000,000 to be deposited into the Asset Proceeds and
Space Management Fund for activities related to the
implementation of the Commission recommendations.
(b) Federal Buildings Fund.--There is authorized to be
appropriated from the Federal Buildings Fund established
under section 592 of title 40, United States Code, for
construction and acquisition activities $0 for fiscal year
2012.
SEC. 17. FUNDING.
(a) Creation of Salaries and Expenses Account.--
(1) Establishment of account.--There is hereby established
on the books of the Treasury an account to be known as the
``Civilian Property Realignment Commission--Salaries and
Expenses'' account.
(2) Necessary payments.--There shall be deposited into the
account such amounts, as are provided in appropriations Acts,
for those necessary payments for salaries and expenses to
accomplish the administrative needs of the Commission.
[[Page H498]]
(b) Creation of Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund.--
There is hereby established within the Federal Buildings Fund
established under section 592 of title 40, United States
Code, an account to be known as the ``Civilian Property
Realignment Commission--Asset Proceeds and Space Management
Fund'' which shall be used solely for the purposes of
carrying out actions pursuant to the Commission
recommendations approved under section 14. Notwithstanding
section 3307 of title 40, United States Code, the following
amounts shall be deposited into the account and made
available for obligation or expenditure only as provided in
advance in appropriations Acts for the purposes specified:
(1) Such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts, to
remain available until expended, for the consolidation, co-
location, exchange, redevelopment, re-configuration of space,
disposal, and other actions recommended by the Commission for
Federal agencies.
(2) Amounts received from the sale of any civilian real
property action taken pursuant to a recommendation or the
Commission under section 15. As provided in appropriations
Acts, such proceeds may be made available to cover necessary
costs associated with implementing the recommendations
pursuant to section 15, including costs associated with--
(A) sales transactions;
(B) acquiring land, construction, constructing replacement
facilities, conducting advance planning and design as may be
required to transfer functions from a Federal asset or
property to another Federal civilian property;
(C) co-location, redevelopment, disposal, and
reconfiguration of space; and
(D) other actions recommended by the Commission for Federal
agencies.
(c) Additional Requirement for Budget Contents.--The
President's budget submitted pursuant to section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, shall include an estimate of
proceeds that are the result of the Commission's
recommendations and the obligations and expenditures needed
to support such recommendations.
SEC. 18. DISPOSAL OF REAL PROPERTIES.
(a) Environmental Considerations.--
(1) Applicability of other Law.--Public Law 91-190, as
amended, shall not apply to activities under section 11 of
this Act.
(2) Civil Action.--A civil action for judicial review, with
respect to any requirement of Public Law 91-190, as amended,
to the extent such public law is applicable to the actions
under section 15 of this Act, of any act or failure to act by
a Federal agency during the closing, realigning, or
relocating of functions under this Act, may not be brought
more than 60 days after the date of such act or failure to
act.
(3) Transfer of real property.--
(A) In General.--When implementing the recommended actions
pursuant to section 15 for properties that have been
identified in the Commission's recommendations and in
compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)),
Federal agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by
deed real property with any person.
(B) Additional Terms.--The head of the disposing agency may
require any additional terms and conditions in connection
with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head
of the disposing agency considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States. Such additional terms and
conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or
obligations of the Federal agencies under CERCLA section
120(h) (including, without limitation, the requirements
CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and CERCLA section
120(h)(3)(C)(iv)).
(4) Information disclosure.--As part, of an agreement
pursuant to this Act, the agency shall disclose to the person
to whom the property or facilities will be transferred any
information of the Federal agency regarding the environmental
restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance
activities described in this Act that relate to the property
or facilities. The agency shall provide such information
before entering into the agreement.
(b) Construciton of Certain Acts.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to modify, alter, or amend the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) or the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
SEC. 19. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PROJECTS.
Section 3307(b) of title 40, United States Code is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) a statement of how the proposed project is consistent
with section 11(b) of the Civilian Property Realignment
Act.''.
SEC. 20. LIMITATION OF CERTAIN LEASING AUTHORITIES.
(a) Limitation of certain leasing authorities.--Chapter 33
of title 40, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 3317. LIMITATION ON LEASING AUTHORITY OF OTHER
AGENCIES
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no executive agency may lease space for the purposes of
a public building as defined under section 3301, except as
provided under section 585, and the provisions in this
chapter.
``(b) Public Building.--For the purposes of this section,
the term `public building' shall include leased space.
``(c) Further Exclusions.--This section shall not apply
to--
``(1) properties that are excluded for reasons of national
security by the President; and
``(2) properties of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as creating new authority for executive agencies to
enter into leases or limit the authority of the
Administration under section 3314.''.
(b) Small Businesses.--When using commercial leasing
services, the Administrator shall adhere to the requirements
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. et seq.).
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is
amended by adding at the end:
``3317. Limitation on leasing authority of other agencies.''.
SEC. 21. IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW BY GAO.
Upon transmittal of the Commission's recommendations from
the President to the Congress under section 13, the
Comptroller General of the United States at least annually
shall monitor, review the implementation activities of
Federal agencies pursuant to section 15, and report to
Congress any findings and recommendations.
The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in House Report 112-385. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
The Chair understands amendment No. 1 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Denham
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 112-385.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that the amendment
before mine is not being brought up?
The CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
Does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk?
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 28, after line 15, insert the following:
(e) McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Review.--Upon
the enactment of a joint resolution described in section
14(c) and for not more than 90 days after such enactment, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall apply
section 501 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 11411) to the extent practicable, to any buildings
identified for disposal in the approved recommendations that
are not more than 25,000 square feet or valued at less than
$5,000,000.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects what was agreed to
by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia on the homeless issue.
The amendment ensures that there is a reasonable review of properties
for use by the homeless.
Under current law, the review process is covered by the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Assistance Act. This amendment applies that law in a
streamlined way to the civilian property realignment process created in
H.R. 1734.
{time} 1950
The streamlined review process would set a clear timeframe and apply
to the types of properties normally used for the homeless, those less
than 25,000 square feet or not more than $5 million in value.
Over the 25 years since McKinney-Vento was enacted, 82 properties
have been conveyed for homeless use. In 25 years, just 82 properties
have been conveyed, and we want to continue to extend that, seeing as
there may be other opportunities.
Typically, these are small properties used for shelters and similar
types of assistance. The larger properties tend to be warehouses for
food banks. Given this, the amendment provides two triggers, one based
on size, and another on value to ensure properties that may be
appropriate are considered for homeless use.
This is a reasonable compromise to this issue. I worked closely with
the ranking member of our subcommittee, and on Friday we had agreed to
this solution. Despite reversing her decision, I'll move forward on the
agreed-upon language.
[[Page H499]]
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 112-385.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 28, line 15, insert after ``the Administrator.'' the
following: ``The Administrator may also exclude property from
any such transaction that the Administrator has determined is
suitable for assignment to the Secretary of the Interior for
transfer to a State, a political subdivision or
instrumentality of a State, or a municipality for use as a
public park or recreation area under section 550(e) of title
40, United States Code. In making such determination, the
Administrator may consider the appraised value of the
property and the highest and best use.''
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Both the Transportation and Infrastructure and the Oversight and
Government Reform committees have marked up legislation to save money
through the disposal of Federal property. We've identified bipartisan
common ground on the subject in the past. I hope we can continue to do
so with this bill.
In the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Members and the
staff have worked on a bipartisan basis to report legislation
expediting the disposal of real Federal property. The bill we reported
unanimously included, by voice vote, my amendment to protect the
ability of local governments to work with the Federal Government on
real property disposal. The amendment before us today includes
identical language to protect local planning prerogatives and to ensure
that Federal decisions take cognizance of local circumstances. I
reiterate, an amendment that had Republican support on the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee.
I introduced this amendment because I have direct experience with
successful real property disposal in my northern Virginia district. My
predecessor, Republican Tom Davis of Virginia, worked with me and my
colleagues in local government and with the GSA to sell the former
Lorton prison site, which was under Federal control, to Fairfax County,
Virginia.
The land transfer saved the Federal Government the cost of
maintaining over 330 structures on the property and many historic
buildings. In collaboration with the community, we created a new park
with cultural and recreational attractions, and the project set off a
development boom in the southern part of our community.
In short, this land transfer was a win/win for the Federal
Government, for the local government. Both benefited from the sale, and
local residents who lacked adequate park land, and a win for the
private sector which capitalized on residential and commercial
redevelopment opportunities as a result.
Other communities across America ought to also be able to work with
the Federal Government on mutually beneficial land disposal processes
like those that turned Lorton prison into a vibrant new community in my
county.
Mr. Denham and the T Committee have judiciously included
stipulations that the BRAC-type commission for property disposal
include individuals with historic preservation and community
development expertise, and I appreciate that. However, these
individuals cannot possibly know about the individual local
circumstances in communities all across America.
For that expertise, we must return to the conservative principle that
local people, not the Federal Government, know the most about their own
local circumstances. To that end, my simple amendment would protect the
ability of local governments to work with GSA to dispose of real
property which would be suitable for park land.
This amendment would not interfere with the author's objective of
liquidating high-value Federal buildings, nor would it compromise the
BRAC-type commission. It simply would give local governments and local
taxpayers a voice in the disposal of property in their back yards, if
that property is suitable for park land.
As we learned in Oversight and Government Reform hearings on this
topic, my amendment would save the Federal Government money because it
would eliminate Federal maintenance expenses; and we know that
maintenance costs represent the largest and most achievable cost-
savings opportunity in real-property disposal.
In summary, this amendment is based on local success we realized
working with Congress, both Tom Davis and Jim Moran, to preserve park
land and save money for the Federal Government. Similar language was
adopted unanimously in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
recently when we marked up similar legislation to H.R. 1734. It would
protect local governments' and local citizens' roles in the land-
disposal process, based on the conservative principle the Federal
Government doesn't always know best.
I appreciate the time the T Committee staff took to try to work
with us on this amendment. I also appreciate the support for this
language from Democratic and Republican members of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee during our markup, and I urge our
colleagues to support the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 1734 is drafted to ensure there is a streamlined process to sell
or redevelop high-value assets.
H.R. 1734 preserves our parks and open spaces by explicitly exempting
them from the process outlined in the bill. Despite this, the amendment
by the gentleman from Virginia would give the General Services
Administration extraordinary authority to take valuable properties off
the table and set them aside. This amendment would give GSA veto
authority over the President, over Congress by allowing GSA to remove
properties after recommendations are approved.
The legislation includes opportunities for State and local
governments to receive properties in the process, and the commission
will include expertise in community development. Those considerations
would be included in the recommendations submitted to the President and
Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I heard the eloquent cry for bipartisanship from the gentleman from
California just a few minutes ago. Here's an amendment that passed
unanimously, without objection on the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. It, by no means, grants the kind of authority just described
to GSA. It is a simple protection for local governments to get in the
process.
I regret very much that the fix is in, that we're not going to have
bipartisan amendments adopted tonight to this bill, and little wonder
then that your bill will have no support on this side of the aisle.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
House Report 112-385.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
[[Page H500]]
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 35, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 22. SENSE OF CONGRESS AND REPORTS.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Civilian Property Realignment Commission, should
take steps to provide assistance to small, minority, and
woman-owned businesses seeking to be awarded contracts to
redevelop federal property;
(2) the Civilian Property Realignment Commission and other
appropriate Federal officials should conduct a public
information campaign to advise small, minority, and women-
owned business firms with respect to contracts for the sale
or redevelopment of Federal property; and
(3) firms that are awarded contracts pertaining to the
redevelopment of Federal property should, to the maximum
extent practicable, seek to award subcontracts for such
contracts to small, minority, and women-owned business firms.
(b) Progress Reports.--Every 6 months, the Civilian
Property Realignment Commission shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress and the President, a
report regarding contracting. Each such report shall
indicate, as of the date of the submission of such report,
the size of all business firms awarded contracts by the
Commission and the size of all business firms awarded
subcontracts under such contracts
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As I understand this legislation, it is to establish a commission
that deals with the civilian property realignment for this Nation. Some
340 million-plus square feet, I understand, is within the jurisdiction
of the General Services Administration.
I want to acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member on many
issues dealing with property around the Nation. Thank her for that
leadership.
My amendment is a simple amendment that expresses that the
commission, or other appropriate Federal agencies, should conduct a
public-information campaign to advise small, minority, women-owned
businesses of the available contracts under this particular commission
and report to Congress.
{time} 2000
Just this morning, before I flew to Washington, I had a room full of
small, minority, and women-owned businesses clamoring to understand how
to interact with the Federal Government. In fact, one particular women-
owned business stood up and said that they had been certified for
however long and never could get any information on how to access
opportunities that could be utilized by their small business to create
jobs.
This amendment is a sense of Congress that provides a public
awareness campaign that would help to ensure that a broad swath of the
small business community is reached. It is imperative that these
businesses are aware of the existence of contracts. It is also
imperative that the process for obtaining a Government contract is
clear, which is why it is extremely important that the commission,
along with other appropriate Federal agencies, implement an awareness
campaign targeting small, minority, and women-owned businesses.
I further believe there should be accountability as to which firms
are receiving these lucrative contracts, and a system of monitoring.
Everyone has said on the floor of the House--bipartisan, Republicans
and Democrats--we are for small businesses. So am I. I want them
thriving, growing, surviving, and getting the information to do
business with this huge Federal Government.
This amendment, which is a sense of Congress, I believe gives them an
opportunity to play on an equal playing field.
We know what will happen with a commission: that those who have
always known how to access the system will be at the front of the line.
Let's give these small companies an opportunity to also achieve their
dreams and aspiration for the American Dream.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise to debate H.R. 1734, the ``Civilian Property
Realignment Act.'' I offered an amendment to this measure which
acknowledges the challenges faced by small, minority, and women-owned
businesses that participate in the government contracting process.
However, I have several reservations about this bill. The failure to
include language that would require an environmental impact analysis of
these properties does not make sense.
The original bill waived Title V of the of the McKinney-Vento Act,
which provides for the free transfer of surplus federal properties to
homeless providers, as well as, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Homeless providers have claimed less than 1 percent of the
thousands of properties available to them because of the size of the
properties. I was led to believe that an agreement had been reached to
ensure that a provision that applied the McKinney-Vento requirements to
properties of a certain size and value would be in this bill, it is
unclear whether that will be the case.
In addition, the bill contains a second poisonous pill, as it waives
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires a thorough
public examination of the environmental impacts of a project or
property transfer, to avoid an unintended adverse effect on a
surrounding community and a harmful precedent of waiving appropriate
environmental review on major infrastructure projects.
Many of these properties are decades old. These buildings may contain
asbestos among other issues that may have a direct impact on those who
renovate them, as well as, the surrounding communities in which they
are located. Allowing those communities to express their concerns
through a public comment period is reasonable. In addition, ensuring
that the federal government does all that it can to remediate its own
property prior to transfer or renovation is an example to all other
sectors of the importance of adhering to environmental safety
standards. If these concerns can be addressed this bill serves as a
reasonable vehicle to help combat the deficit. If these concerns cannot
be address this bill may be fatally flawed.
Would require federal agencies to compile environmental information
about all property being considered for action and provide for a
limited review of property by homeless service providers.
President Obama, first proposed this bipartisan measure in his budget
last year as a means to decrease unnecessary government spending and
reduce the deficit. It is my hope that the issues that have been raised
can be addressed before we must vote on this measure.
H.R. 1734 establishes the Civilian Property Realignment Commission
(CPRC) to better manage federal buildings and facilities. This measure
would give the Commission broad new authorities to consolidate, dispose
of, or sell some government properties. In addition, the Commission is
required to sell at least five facilities that have a combined
estimated fair market value of at least $500 million.
I believe that if this legislation passes that the newly formed
Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) should take steps to
educate and assist small, women, and minority-owned businesses when
awarding contracts related to the sale or redevelopment of federal
property. However the bill does not address concerns raised related to
the impact on the homeless and it removes a provision that requires an
environmental impact study before the transfer of any federal land.
These studies are a tool to determine the land, air, and water quality
of the property being transferred and the intended use of said
property. I believe that it is not in the best interest of the
government or local communities to remove this vital safety feature.
H.R. 1734 is similar to the Department of Defense Base Realignment
Commission (BRAC) law, which allows the federal government to make the
best use of surplus and underused properties under the jurisdiction of
various federal agencies, and to dispose of properties the government
does not need to help with debt reduction.
It is important to remember that the federal government owns a
significant amount of property. The role of the CPRC is to present an
accurate view of how that property is currently utilized and
consolidate certain activities. For example, currently 30 different
agencies have 30 different leasing methods; the CPRC would streamline
the process by taking over leasing authority.
The General Services Administration (GSA) one of the largest real
estate organizations in the world, with an inventory consisting of
8,920 assets with over 342 million square feet of rentable space across
all 50 states, 6 U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia. They
serve approximately 1 million Federal employees at 59 different
agencies. The GSA has a portfolio which consists primarily of office
buildings, courthouses, laboratories, border stations, and warehouses.
GSA's current inventory consists of 8,932 assets totaling 387,841,174
gross square feet
[[Page H501]]
(gsf) nationwide. When these assets are separated between leased and
owned, the portfolio consists of 1,884 owned assets totaling
218,983,699 gsf and 7,048 leased assets representing 168,857,475 gsf.
The annual operating costs for FY2005 were $1.5 billion, $800 million
for government owned and $650 million for leased locations. The
replacement value of the owned inventory is $37.2 billion.
They have reduced the percentage of underutilized and non-performing
assets from 42 percent to 26 percent;
Reduced vacant space from 9.2 percent to 6.8 percent, significantly
below the 2005 industry average rate of 12.5 percent; and,
Reported excess 204 assets and demolished 50 buildings and, as a
result, eliminated 3.1 million rentable square feet of vacant space and
achieved a cost avoidance of $400 million in capital reinvestment
needs.
As of October 1, 2002, federal agencies reported a total of 927
vacant and underutilized real properties--including facilities and
land--located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico in 294
cities.
The Veteran's Administration (VA) reported the most properties-577;
General Service Administration (GSA) reported 236 properties, and
United States Postal Service (USPS) reported 114 properties.
Most of these properties--807 of 927--were facilities that
represented about 32.1 million square feet and ranged from office
buildings to hospitals to post offices.
Although VA reported the highest number of facilities, GSA facilities
made up more than half of this square footage. The remaining 120
properties were vacant lands reported only by VA and USPS, most of
which were 10 acres or less.
One-third or 125 of GSA's underutilized and unutilized assets have
been reported excess and accepted for disposal. These assets account
for almost 9 million gross square feet (gsf) and $10.9 million in
operating expenses that will be eliminated upon completion of the
disposal action. Another 18 underutilized assets with approximately 1
million gross square feet (gsf) and $1.5 million in operating costs are
projected for disposal in the next five years pending customer
relocation.
There were 89 leased facilities that were determined to be
underutilized with operating costs totaling $6.2 million in FY2005. GSA
eliminates vacant leased space by backfilling space with other
customers, terminating the lease or vacant portion thereof or buying
out the remaining lease term whenever possible. At the end of FY2005,
GSA's leased vacancy rate was at a record low level (below 1.5%).
With an aging inventory it is imperative that we reinvest in our
federal facilities to maintain a quality workplace for our federal
agencies. At any given time a significant portion of our vacant space
is under renovation.
As of September 30, 2005, GSA had 21 assets vacated for major
renovations accounting for almost 9 million gross square feet and $39.6
million in operating expenses. As the current projects are completed,
the space will be backfilled and these assets will once again become
utilized.
At the same time, new projects will begin in different assets keeping
the amount of assets that are underutilized due to major renovations
fairly constant.
The Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) will review all
federal properties and leases utilized for civilian use to determine an
accurate number of properties that are either vacant or underutilized.
The independent Commission (CPRC), operating under the GSA, will
transform how federal real estate is managed. The purpose of the
Commission will be to convert real estate inefficiencies into
reductions in the Federal deficit. By facilitating and expediting the
sale and disposal of unneeded properties; reducing our reliance on
costly leased space; and sell or redevelop high value assets that are
underutilized.
I firmly believe this Commission should consider the impact of their
decisions on the small business community. Specifically, small,
minority, and women-owned businesses which face many challenges when
trying to learn about the existence of government contracts for which
they can apply, as well as, maneuvering through the complex government
contracting process.
As the decisions of the Commission will impact local communities,
revitalize neighborhoods, decrease government spending, and reduce the
deficit. The Commission should recognize the important role that small
businesses play in our economy.
My amendment simply expresses that the Commission or other
appropriate federal agency should conduct a public information campaign
to advise small, minority, women-owned businesses of the available
contracts.
In order to ensure that a broad swath of the small business community
is reached it is imperative that these businesses are aware of the
existence of contracts. It is also imperative that the process for
attaining a government contract is clear; which is why it is extremely
important that the Commission, along with all other appropriate federal
agencies, implement an awareness campaign targeting small, minority,
and women-owned businesses.
The only way to ensure a diverse representation of businesses is
through targeted awareness campaigns followed by a clear process, along
with adequate support.
Further, I believe there should be accountability as to which firms
are receiving these lucrative contracts. The Commission should report
to Congress and the President every 6 months. This report should
include the amount of contracts awarded to business firms. The report
should also include small, minority, and women-owned businesses, as
well as, subcontracts awarded to these businesses.
Few would argue with the premise that small business is the backbone
of our economy and the heartbeat of our nation. The small business
owner reflects a valued principle in our nation's heritage. The belief
that an individual or a group of individuals can come together to build
a business from the ground up then employ their neighbors.
SMALL BUSINESS
In government contracting it is important to ensure that everyone has
equal access to this valued American dream. Every small business should
have a fair chance to have an equal opportunity to attain a government
contract that will impact their communities.
Ninety-nine percent of all independent companies and businesses in
the United States are considered small businesses.
Small businesses are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds
of the new jobs over the last 15 years. Enabling small businesses to
gain access to these contracts would result in job growth in areas that
were previously underutilized by the federal government.
Small businesses have always been a source of dynamism for the
American economy.
In 2009, there were 27.5 million businesses in the United States.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) these small
enterprises account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers.
Some 19.6 million Americans work for companies employing fewer than
20 workers, 18.4 million work for firms employing between 20 and 99
workers, and 14.6 million work for firms with 100 to 499 workers. By
contrast, 47.7 million Americans work for firms with 500 or more
employees.
MILITARY MUSEUM OF TEXAS
As a Senior Member on the House Homeland Security Committee, I have
been one of the foremost proponents of finding ways to transform
federal property from vacant space into property that can serve the
community.
I introduced legislation that was signed into law that allowed the
Military Museum of Texas to purchase land from the GSA. I realize the
negative impact underutilized and vacant properties have on local
communities. To be frank, if a property is not properly tended to it
becomes blight upon the community and a needless expense for taxpayers.
The land upon which the Military Museum of Texas is located, 8611
Wallisville Road, Houston, Texas, was property of the General Services
Administration. A bill I introduced last Congress, H.R. 6510, directed
the General Services Administration (GSA) to convey at market value all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to over three
acres of property located at 8611 Wallisville Road, in Houston, Texas
to the Military Museum of Texas.
The conveyance was based upon an independent appraisal and any other
costs associated will be paid for by the Military Museum.
The passage of H.R. 6510, allowed the Military Museum of Texas to
remain at its current location in Houston, Texas and purchase the 3.6
acres from the General Services Administration that was previously
vacant. In order for the GSA to sell this piece of land which was not
being utilized required an Act of Congress.
With the establishment of the Civilian Realignment Commission it is
my belief that more opportunities to revitalize communities, like the
one afforded the Military Museum of Texas, can be found. These
opportunities will benefit both businesses and the communities within
which they are located.
The Military Museum of Texas was formed to create, maintain and
operate an institution to honor and perpetuate the memories of all men
and women who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States of
America. The President of the Military Museum of Texas, Ed Farris, a
former Marine sergeant, and a 22-year veteran of the Houston Police
Department's motorcycle patrol and bomb squad, worked tirelessly to
preserve the memories of the men and women of the armed forces.
The Military Museum is a pillar in the community, and a benefit to
schools, veterans and military related groups. It provides educational
programs, live reenactments from military personnel as well as
interactive exhibits. Furthermore, the Military Museum provides
internships in military history and preservation, and
[[Page H502]]
a research database available for education and historical institutions
and the public. Instead of land being left vacant it can now be used by
the community.
Clearly there are many vital and important provisions in this bill;
however, I still have grave reservations about the repeal of an
environmental impact study before the transference of any federal land.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, let me just say that the
evidence of how important this language is is by way of a group in
Texas that was able to secure by legislation--with the gentlelady from
the District of Columbia's excellent assistance--a military museum that
was held by the General Services Administration. This group of veterans
is making it a productive site and a productive part of our local
community that evidences what we can secure with this language.
Again, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be
offered.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Carnahan
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in
House Report 112-385.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new sections:
SEC. 22. CONSIDERATION OF LIFE-CYCLE COST REQUIRED.
Section 3305 of title 40, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Consideration of Life-cycle Cost Required.--
``(1) Requirement.--The Administrator shall ensure that the
life-cycle cost of a public building is considered in the
construction or lease of a public building described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) Federal buildings subject to requirement.--A public
building is subject to the requirement under paragraph (1)
if--
``(A) construction or lease of the building begins after
the date of the enactment of the Civilian Property
Realignment Act;
``(B) the estimated construction costs of the building
exceed $1,000,000;
``(C) in the case of a lease, the square footage of the
property is more than 25,000 square feet; and
``(D) Federal funding comprises more than 50 percent of the
funding for the estimated construction or lease costs of the
building.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Life-cycle cost.--The term `life-cycle cost' means
the sum of the following costs, as estimated for the lifetime
of a building:
``(i) Investment costs.
``(ii) Capital costs.
``(iii) Installation costs.
``(iv) Energy costs.
``(v) Operating costs.
``(vi) Maintenance costs.
``(vii) Replacement costs.
``(B) Lifetime of a building.--The term `lifetime of a
building' means, with respect to a building, the greater of--
``(i) the period of time during which the building is
projected to be utilized; or
``(ii) 50 years.''.
SEC. 23. LONG-TERM SAVINGS THROUGH LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS.
Section 3307(b) of title 40, United States Code, as amended
by section 19, is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) with respect to any prospectus for the construction,
alteration, or acquisition of any building or space to be
leased, a statement by the Administrator describing the use
of life-cycle cost analysis and any increased design,
construction, or acquisition costs identified by such
analysis that are offset by lower long-term costs.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 537, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to add my voice to encouraging our chairman and ranking
member to continue to work together to find that common ground. I know
they have worked on this, but there obviously is more work to be done,
and I want to encourage that. It is the only way we are going to get
things done in this House.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on
the committee and on this bill. I also want to thank the bipartisan
High-Performance Building Caucus that I've worked with over the last
several years that has helped bring focus on more efficient management
and technology for our built environment.
The amendment that I offer here tonight will ensure that the Federal
Government makes better decisions in the construction or leasing of
Federal facilities, decisions that save taxpayer dollars. The U.S.
Federal Government manages a large inventory of approximately 429,000
buildings, with a total square footage of 3.34 billion worldwide.
As we know, buildings are resource intensive, accounting for 40
percent of primary energy use in the U.S., 12 percent of water
consumption, and 60 percent of nonindustrial waste. Federal facilities
account for 0.4 percent of the Nation's energy usage. With such a large
energy footprint and related costs, it is only common sense that the
Federal Government fully understand both the short- and long-term cost
of the construction and lease for a facility.
My amendment ensures that future construction and leased projects
reflect the best use of Federal dollars and the greatest value for
taxpayers. My amendment does this by requiring the use of life-cycle
cost analysis in the design or lease of a Federal building where the
project is receiving at least 50 percent Federal funding. Life-cycle
cost analysis is the most accurate method for assessing the total cost
of facility ownership. It takes into account all costs of acquiring,
owning, and disposing of a building or building system. It is a whole
picture assessment of a project instead of only looking at the
immediate upfront costs.
This would provide valuable insight into the real long-term costs of
a facility and encourage the construction or lease of the facilities
that provide the best results for the lowest overall cost.
The process of life-cycle analysis makes for sound fiscal policy and
increases transparency and accountability while allowing our building
planners to account for the full long-term costs of projects.
Life-cycle budgeting ensures that we make the best decisions and get
the most value when it comes to our infrastructure. We know that it can
be marginally more expensive to construct an energy efficient facility,
but over the long term, the same facility saves money in energy and
water costs that actually make the building a better investment.
My amendment will ensure that Federal agencies have a complete
picture and understand ongoing budgetary obligations when considering
construction or leasing of a facility. Agencies should use this tool to
consider the total cost of ownership of their buildings, including
long-term operating life-cycle costs.
This amendment requires Federal agencies to use life-cycle cost
analysis of the overall spending on design, construction, operation,
and maintenance to reflect the best use of agency funds.
I thank my colleagues for recognizing the importance of this issue,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in
opposition even though I'm not opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Missouri for his work on this amendment. Just as we saw the other
Democratic amendment pass through on a voice vote, I assume we're going
to see this one pass through on a voice vote as well, making both
amendments actually language in the bill.
That could've been done a couple of other times tonight. We want to
make sure we have got a bipartisan bill, that both parties can agree
that we want to get rid of waste, that we want to get rid of properties
we just don't need, and that we actually run a more efficient
government.
[[Page H503]]
But specifically on this amendment, again I'd like to thank the
gentleman from Missouri for his work on this. This amendment would
ensure that the General Services Administration accounts for the total
cost in the design or lease of a building.
Very often GSA makes decisions that bind the taxpayer to significant
financial obligations when procuring space. And unfortunately,
currently GSA's analyses do not take into account the total life-cycle
cost of the taxpayer investment. This amendment would correct this. I
support the adoption of this amendment as I've supported other
adoptions tonight.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of Mr. Carnahan's amendment, and he ran out of
time. First of all, I see a lot of comity and collegiality on the floor
tonight. I've known the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for a
very long time. Mr. Carnahan said something that struck my conscience,
and that is that we are able to master this legislative process that
allows us to negotiate to the moment that we might get this on the
floor, which I understand may be tomorrow.
I would encourage whatever it is possible to do, Mr. Denham. I've
gotten to know you--whatever is possible for a bill as important as
this. You mentioned the possibility of language, reconciliation. I
cannot speak for the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, and I
don't intend to do so. But I do know her as a person who keeps her
word, who loves this Capitol, which she represents, and has a deep and
abiding concern about the homeless and obviously this issue of the use
of property.
{time} 2010
I only entreat you to see what is possible as you have debated on the
floor this evening for Mr. Carnahan and my amendment. I would encourage
that there be further discussions if you and the gentlelady can secure
that opportunity. I think both would be able to hopefully have
dialogue, but I do want to have on record my high esteem and respect
for her leadership on these issues. You are very kind to have yielded
to me.
Mr. DENHAM. In reclaiming my time, I support the amendment, and look
forward to bipartisan support on the bill tomorrow morning. This is
something that taxpayers need. This is something that will help us to
reduce our debt in a way in which Republicans and Democrats can come
together and work on something on a bipartisan level and actually give
something back to the President that he is asking for.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank the gentleman for his remarks.
The ranking member has asked to speak for the remaining time, so I
would yield that 1 minute to our ranking member, the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I support the Carnahan amendment, and I just want to indicate what
the agreement was with the chairman.
In the base bill, we would have a bill that Democrats and Republicans
would support. What we have here is a bill that somehow Republicans are
divided on and that Democrats are expected to somehow carry over the
finish line. If, in fact, this bill had come as a base bill, I think
you would have had Democrats in larger numbers supporting this bill.
Whatever Republicans wanted to do with the fact that the base bill did
not always conform exactly to what they would have wanted would have
been made up for on our side.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Amodei) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Chair of the Committee
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1734) to
decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing,
and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian
real property, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________